More To See

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

On Censorship

It's national Banned Book Week. A celebration of reading the things that someone didn't want us to, both historically and currently.

I'm a partisan in this fight, emphatically against any governmental entity telling me what is good or bad for me to read. But what about the other side of the issue? The counter-claim was launched by the Wall Street Journal in an Op/Ed titled "Finding Censorship Where Theyre Is None" which trotted out the usual arguments summed-up by the idea that it is impossible to really ban a book in today's America. With open lines to obtain a copy of anything we want online, censorship is theoretically impossible and citizens challenging the content of their libraries is the constitutionally-protected right to seek redress of grievances.
And they're right... at least to a point.

Christine at the wonderful book blog Stacked posted an excellent commentary in reflection of to the Wall Street Journal's Op/Ed and I encourage you to read it. She rightly points out the difference between books in school libraries and books in public libraries. But she reiterated something for the WSJ that I disagree with... that avenues of getting around a ban negates the ban and thereby negates the ability to censor. (You'll find my comments there as well.)

This is the stickiest of sticky issues. I agree on the marked differences between choosing appropriate materials for a school versus restricting content in a public forum such as a public library. Schools are necessarily controlled environments for pedagogical reasons and that has been repeatedly underlined by the US Supreme Court.

And the WSJ is also correct inasmuch as the application by citizens to have books moved, removed or segregated is the right of a citizen to seek redress of perceived grievance — a right every bit as sacred as the freedom of speech. And sometimes the two will collide, the one becoming restrictive of the other.

Rights are not absolute and definition and boundaries are usually defined as your rights stop where they begin to impinge upon the rights of another. You right to swing your fist stops when your fist impacts my nose. For similar reasons not all speech is protected inasmuch as you can’t shout “Fire” in a theater. The trouble is that outside of the realm of theater-shouting there’s no good way to indicate where your speech has impacted my nose… so to speak.

As a citizen of this country, I have the legally-protected right and ability to obtain a copy of anything online (within the bounds of copyright law which is a whole other issue). But this ability to get it doesn’t negate the ability of a community to censor. A theoretical path around a roadblock doesn’t make the obstacle cease to exist.

The trouble is the inherent conceit that there are people out there who ‘know better’ and deserve a role in choosing for me and for my child what they can or cannot see, hear and read. Within a school curriculum that makes a certain kind of sense, but a public library is a public forum. And any effort by authorities to restrict the contents of the stacks or remove items and place them behind a curtain not for fear that they will be stolen and incur additional costs to replace, but for fear of what reaction they might provoke… that stigmatizes those authors and those books and those who dare to read those books. The act of crossing into the restricted section becomes an open act in defiance of the perceived mores of the community rather than a private act of self-education. This will embolden some, even encourage them to read the banned material as an act of defiance, yes. But doing something in defiance inherently changes our relationship to the material. Even so, it's not for those emboldened that we argue -- it’s for those who will be warned away, their minds and ideas unchallenged by the forbidden volumes behind the curtain, their education and erudition stunted by lack of intellectual oxygen.

I support your right to seek the removal or segregation of books within the public forum because to support my unfettered right to speak is to likewise support yours. But I don't in any way accept that the government has the right to impose your views on me and mine. Your option to seek redress of grievance is sacrosanct and it contributes to our culture not because I think the government can acquiesce to your demands, but because it keeps the debate alive within our society about a range of issues that should never be kept under a basket.

The public library is the central storehouse of ideas within a community. Whether or not we can find other ways to obtain a copy of a given book or magazine in irrelevant. The removal or segregation of written material within a public library is an act of the government to enforce the opinions of some upon the whole. That is what makes it censorship and takes it from a citizen seeking redress of grievances into the realm of the government endorsing an opinion and acting as the arm of that opinion, ideology or person.

And that's a violation of all of our rights.

---

Scott Walker Perkins writes literary thrillers and novels of suspensewoven from the threads of history. His current novel is The Palimpsest and he is working on another tentatively titled 42 Lines.

5 comments:

I think that the main problem here is with the name of the week ... "Banned Books Week". It's obviously been done for the shock value and the ALA admits that the books are more "challenged" than "banned". Yet, "Challenged Books Week" is a more ambiguous name and doesn't provoke that same sense of outrage, does it?

I don't agree with banning books at all - my original post was more in reactionary to the many book bloggers/twitter users outwrite dismissing the WSJ article without analysis as to what it was saying. These same people toss around the word "censorship" when talking about parent or religious groups asking for a book to be restricted or removed from a school library. In those cases it really isn't censorship as the government isn't involved.

As the challenge letters linked show, rarely ever does a public library fully ban a book. I pointed out that books at risk of theft based on content are often treated like reference books with in-library use only. Most of the time the challenger simply receives a letter saying that the library looked into their concerns but isn't removing the book.

I found it interesting that these bloggers were calling for the voices of authors and interested readers to be heard and a "ban on banning" - if you will - being supported all while ignoring the voices of why some people may have objections to certain books.

Personally, I think challenging books (without banning) is a fantastic thing. Marcelo, on another Stacked post, wrote about why books like Huck Finn should be taught in schools, challenging gives voice to dissenting opinion and forces proponents of both sides of the debate to really think about the value of specific offensive material.

Yes, "Banning" is more compelling than "Challenging" and the reasons for it are obvious. There's marketing at work and wish that more nuanced discussions were more prevalent.

Christine, I think you'll find that I generally agree with you and I'm aware from your post that you're not in favor of banning. On the subject of school libraries where legitimate pedagogical concerns narrow their focus I agree. Not all 'speech' is protected and concerns of society with regard to children should not be ignored. Though likewise First Amendment protections "don't stop at the schoolhouse door" -- balancing the two is a delicate act and I praise and admire librarians for their efforts. It's not an easy job.

I think it's great that people are willing to stand up and have a vocal discussion about books & literature. It revitalizes our culture and society that these things are still being discussed. As I said above I support anyone's right to seek the removal or segregation of books within the public forum because to support my unfettered right to speak is to likewise support yours. But I don't in any way accept that the government has the right to impose your views on me and mine. Your option to seek redress of grievance is sacrosanct and it contributes to our culture not because I think the government can acquiesce to your demands, but because it keeps the debate alive the healthy debate within our society about a range of issues that should never be kept under a basket.

Your blog made me think of the MPAA. While the MPAA doesn't have anything to do with banned books it does essentially censor the film industry. It is interesting that there isn't a rating systems for books yet. We have a rating system for video games, television shows, and movies. It seems the written word is exempt from being rated based on its content. I'm not personally opposed to the idea of having a ratings system for the varies types of media. My concern is that the rating sytem, for film at least, is not equitable. There is no set standard for how a film is evaluated. A group of people who are hired by this private company, which includes religious clergy, form an opinion, which is supposed to represent my opinion, of the film and brand it with a rating. In my opinion the video games rating system is a more efficient system because it tells you why the game got the rating it got (Mature: Violence, Sexual Content, Drug and Alcohol References). Having information about what the game contains allows parents to make an informed decisions. When it comes to film an R is an R. The MPAA also will rate socially controversial situations with a higher rating than their non controversial counter parts. The MPAA is effectively deciding what is apropriate for society dispite not having a balanced board of raters.